Charles Ian Chun: What went wrong? Blog 2004

Some undated entries

2004

The left-wing, the right-wing, and the majority

Politicians and pundits often claim to represent the views of the majority of Americans. As much as I would like to believe that the majority of Americans hold liberal (or, perhaps, left-leaning) values, but either feel that their voice has been silenced or doesn't matter, or are simply lazy and/or take their rights and freedoms for granted, I believe that their values are a little more detached from the left-right political spectrum. I think it is true that the majority feel things like their vote won't count, all politicians are corrupt, the system is too big for them to confront, and so on. To a certain extent, I would, if not agree, then at least, empathize with those sentiments. On the other hand, I also believe that the majority of people are lazy (at least intellectually) and take their rights and freedoms for granted. They are devoted citizens of a consumer culture rather than a civic culture. And who can blame them? Americans are arguably the hardest working people in the world and often have to sacrifice things like their family, friends, humanity, and ethics in order to survive and almost definitely to succeed. Politicians and pundits have to edit and simplify their views, accusations, and solutions in small, sexy, and easily digestible packages in order to gain the support and vote (or complacence -- both can be just as good) of the majority.

I believe that all politicians and pundits along the political spectrum customarily present a distorted reality that bolsters the notion that they are relevant and necessary to civic life and public debate -- something that each side will accuse the other of doing. Guess what, you're both right! Who isn't a fear mongerer these days -- someone urging you to be vigilant and support them for they are the only ones who can give it to you straight and/or pull you out of the mess you're in? But I believe that the majority of Americans hold civic values that have no distinct place on the political spectrum. I think the majority desire of their representatives, at all levels of government, honesty, strength, and compassion. I believe that most Americans understand what is fair and would be willing to give their trust to plans that support the poor, the environment, developing countries, the military, businesses, and others, if they felt that such plans were being executed with honesty, efficiency, and the goal of a common good. This is not to say that there are not too many Americans who want all they can get and "screw everyone else" -- a mentality that often sucks in otherwise honest Americans who simply try to survive in this ultra-competitive society. But the majority of Americans are good people who simply wish for, but feel they cannot expect, the same of their government. Are they wrong? Surely no political party can accurately claim a monopoly on honesty, strength, or compassion. No one will acknowledge an error without being beaten into admission by constituents, political opponents, and the media. And who can blame those people? In our instant-gratification society, we assume that civil servants who make mistakes are automatically incompetent -- an opinion, made ready-to-eat by, yet again, politicians, pundits, and the media.

While it is clear that the majority of Americans need to become more intellectually vigorous and more active in civic life, politicians need someone to inspire them. Is it too much to ask for civil servants who are honest, strong, and compassionate? I'm not talking about those who pretend to be. I'm not talking about those who do what is right, but are actually carried by a hidden and more sinister agenda. This shouldn't be a trick question. But if there were civil servants who exemplify these noble characteristics, the majority would probably support and/or vote for them. Incidentally, these people already exist in political life. Many hold seemingly small, insignificant, and thankless positions. Many others hold significant public office. I can think of some who are currently running for president in 2004. The problem is practically no one knows who they are. The problem is nobody cares to know who they are. The problem is not politicians, pundits, and the media, for I believe that democracy and the free market of goods and ideas can work for those willing to make mild sacrifices. The problem is the majority of Americans. The upside of this problem, however, is that it is with them the solution also lies.

Minimum Wage

When employers pay you the minimum wage, it is their way of saying, "If we could pay you less, we would."

Greed and corporations

I think most people, down to their core, are good. As much as I decry corporations and the “evil” things they do, corporations are ultimately composed of investors – and somewhere inside those investors are the souls of people. I think, if you got to know them one-on-one, you would find that most of them are -- not only nice people, but -- basically good people. Corporations have been the financial muscle (excluding those who seek taxpayer funding for private profit, as Noam Chomsky often asserts) behind many good things in this country and the world. It is because of capitalism and corporations that most Americans are able to enjoy the access to goods and services that they do. Naturally, corporations are behind many unpleasant and pernicious social realities as well: building weapons of mass destruction, creating needs, fostering intellectual laziness, and enticing much of the public into outrageous consumer debt – loaned money used to finance some manufactured version of the American dream. This is primarily because, as I have heard Chomsky say, corporations are profit-driven: corporations have no other purpose. I believe the greed of investors is their motivation for doing what they do; any kind of humanist vision is secondary, at best. But despite this I feel that these investors, as individuals, are still good people. Their problem is that, as I have heard Jello Biafra say, most successful investors, through their numerous financial dealings, become “wealth addicts.” Just like the heroin addict who focuses on nothing other than the next “fix,” wealth addicts accumulate more money than they could ever possibly need and base all subsequent decisions on the desire to gain even more wealth. And just like the drug addict who hurts many along the way, many quite literally, wealth addicts make decisions that either significantly contribute to or directly cause the financial ruin, or stagnation at the bottom, of many in this country and throughout the world. Their damage not only contributes to the loss of capital, but also the instability of societies and governments and their ability to provide goods and services to their people.

I do not pretend to have a viable solution to this problem of corporate greed, although I do embrace an amalgam of ideas for solutions drawn from other intellectuals/activists. My liberal friends, as far as I’m aware, are in favor of a stronger federal government (could be read as “populist”) that would keep the power of corporations in check. And although I think that is all well and good, and evidently necessary, we must realize that these are temporary solutions. Not only could anti-corporate legislation become permanently stalled in its passage, but they could be overturned in subsequent congresses or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (a ruling I wish the Supreme Court will eventually give regarding the existence of corporations). But more importantly, the issue would remain a powerful constant in the public dialogue of conservative pundits and their audiences who will claim the rise of a new communist state who seeks to punish the rich and deprive hard-working, tax-paying (at least in theory) Americans of their right to acquire wealth and fulfill the American dream, or something to that effect. And, honestly, I don’t know if I would entirely disagree with them. I think if people want to make tons of money, they should legally be allowed to (on the other hand, I also believe that heroin addicts should also have the freedom to indulge in their addictions. For pundits like Rush Limbaugh who, ironically, argue that the legalization of drugs (among other things) would weaken the moral fabric of society, I would make the same argument for unfettered greed). I believe that positive and durable social change, one that is more likely to be free from the kind of public criticism that ultimately cripples it, comes from within individuals, not from a government directive. Accordingly, it is up to the people themselves to cultivate the antidotes to greed or, failing that, their own checks to corporate power. Just like I would counsel the heroin addict to seek treatment, people (i.e. consumers) should voice their concerns and objections to corporations arguing that, as consumers of their products and services, they are obligated to make decisions that do not put “profits above people” (that would truly be the free market at work). These can be very public (non-violent) expressions, letters, phone calls, the refusal to work for corporations, or boycotts. If these actions result in the crippling of corporations or the stagnation of the economy, so be it. I would rather have it be the result of a conscious popular movement seeking moderation, balance, honesty, and fiscal responsibility as an antidote to an economy that, in order to sustain its “expansion of wealth”, relies on skyrocketing debt, and the abuse of labor forces and the environment all over the world, to remain robust. I believe actions such as these would not only empower individuals and contribute to many of the goals that liberals aspire to achieve, but also satisfy conservatives to the extent that change was brought about through the will of ordinary Americans, free of government intervention.

History has shown us that ordinary people have the incredible capacity for change. In the wealthiest country in the world with unparalleled access to information, goods, and services (with the exception, perhaps, of the provision of health care and public education), I believe we have more opportunities than anyone else to achieve these lofty goals and gain greater control of our lives and shape society in a way we see fit. If the majority of Americans really are disturbed by the pervasiveness of greed and monolithic corporate power in our culture and society, it really is within our grasp to create positive change. To do anything less would be a wasted existence.

back